Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section)

Get ready for some MACtion
minutefanjsf
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2792
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by minutefanjsf » Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:02 pm

mdogt12 wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 3:42 pm https://www.wcvb.com/article/on-the-rec ... s/42697773
Marty Meehan asked about the cost of college athletics
Thank you for posting. I think he answered the question very well and directly. I think the “is it worth it?” angle was a little loaded, but Marty did well with it especially explains the role it has in fundraising overall not just for athletics.


UMassNet15
Freshman
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 10:10 pm

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by UMassNet15 » Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:19 pm

I have often said, the issues that plague UMass football are more deeply rooted than I think any of us realize. A decade + of losing and decisions made from leadership from the top have taken a toll on a once proud program, rendering it to "lovable losers" status. I don't say this with any malice, I say this so that we begin to look inward before we look forward. The Chancellor, (and President) have to see how broken this situation is. For their own part, their charge, at the end of the day is to protect the brand. It should be aspirational, nay, demanded, that UMass leadership begins a wholistic review of the program to determine where the breakdown lies. As referenced earlier, it's just just schematics, facilities etc. It's deeper than that. It's, for lack of a better phrase, is cultural, and no amount of new leadership will change that because, at the end of the day, the problem is so structural in nature, that it permeates through each new program/system we bring in and won't stop until there is a break in the cycle.
"#Flagship"

eldonabe
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5577
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 4:34 pm
Location: Western MA

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by eldonabe » Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:55 am

UMassNet15 wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:19 pm I have often said, the issues that plague UMass football are more deeply rooted than I think any of us realize. A decade + of losing and decisions made from leadership from the top have taken a toll on a once proud program, rendering it to "lovable losers" status. I don't say this with any malice, I say this so that we begin to look inward before we look forward. The Chancellor, (and President) have to see how broken this situation is. For their own part, their charge, at the end of the day is to protect the brand. It should be aspirational, nay, demanded, that UMass leadership begins a wholistic review of the program to determine where the breakdown lies. As referenced earlier, it's just just schematics, facilities etc. It's deeper than that. It's, for lack of a better phrase, is cultural, and no amount of new leadership will change that because, at the end of the day, the problem is so structural in nature, that it permeates through each new program/system we bring in and won't stop until there is a break in the cycle.
You are correct, the problems with football are much more deeply rooted than most will acknowledge. Umass football has been in purgatory since the day after they announced Molnar. Besides simply sucking (really sucking) for the last 10 years, Umass has so many logistical walls in their way.

1. The geographic is horrible for football. Not just Western Mass, that is the North East in general
2. Our stadium is the worst in FBS and a higher percentage of FCS
3. We do not have any real sugar daddy(s) to compete with NIL (at least not the kinds of players who can help this program turn the corner)

AND - the people who are calling the shots are incompetent (Bamford mostly). In simplest terms, he has not figured out how to manage around the first 3 points. I am not saying I have the answers either, but obstacles today are no different than they were 10 years ago.



The administration has been fucking up time and time again for the last 30+ years. They hit the lottery with Calapari then pissed it all away with bad decision after bad decision - by being flat our wrong or way too late. You can get away with a bad decision or two, but that is it. They fucked up with Bruiser and they fucked up not taking advantage of jumping up in football in the 90's, and they piled on from there. Instead of taking advantage of and investing in the opportunity, they got greedy instead.

PreecherJenkins
Senior
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 12:41 am

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by PreecherJenkins » Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:10 pm

eldonabe wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:55 am
UMassNet15 wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:19 pm I have often said, the issues that plague UMass football are more deeply rooted than I think any of us realize. A decade + of losing and decisions made from leadership from the top have taken a toll on a once proud program, rendering it to "lovable losers" status. I don't say this with any malice, I say this so that we begin to look inward before we look forward. The Chancellor, (and President) have to see how broken this situation is. For their own part, their charge, at the end of the day is to protect the brand. It should be aspirational, nay, demanded, that UMass leadership begins a wholistic review of the program to determine where the breakdown lies. As referenced earlier, it's just just schematics, facilities etc. It's deeper than that. It's, for lack of a better phrase, is cultural, and no amount of new leadership will change that because, at the end of the day, the problem is so structural in nature, that it permeates through each new program/system we bring in and won't stop until there is a break in the cycle.
You are correct, the problems with football are much more deeply rooted than most will acknowledge. Umass football has been in purgatory since the day after they announced Molnar. Besides simply sucking (really sucking) for the last 10 years, Umass has so many logistical walls in their way.

1. The geographic is horrible for football. Not just Western Mass, that is the North East in general
2. Our stadium is the worst in FBS and a higher percentage of FCS
3. We do not have any real sugar daddy(s) to compete with NIL (at least not the kinds of players who can help this program turn the corner)

AND - the people who are calling the shots are incompetent (Bamford mostly). In simplest terms, he has not figured out how to manage around the first 3 points. I am not saying I have the answers either, but obstacles today are no different than they were 10 years ago.



The administration has been fucking up time and time again for the last 30+ years. They hit the lottery with Calapari then pissed it all away with bad decision after bad decision - by being flat our wrong or way too late. You can get away with a bad decision or two, but that is it. They fucked up with Bruiser and they fucked up not taking advantage of jumping up in football in the 90's, and they piled on from there. Instead of taking advantage of and investing in the opportunity, they got greedy instead.
Eldon- we completely agree on the football should have moved up in the 90's to conference usa. would have been a good fit for basketball and football at the time.

here is my question for you: who should have umass hired after Cal?
"You are what your record says you are" Coach Bill P.

JUST SAY NO TO THE MAC

minutefanjsf
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2792
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by minutefanjsf » Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:47 pm

PreecherJenkins wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:10 pm
eldonabe wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:55 am
UMassNet15 wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:19 pm I have often said, the issues that plague UMass football are more deeply rooted than I think any of us realize. A decade + of losing and decisions made from leadership from the top have taken a toll on a once proud program, rendering it to "lovable losers" status. I don't say this with any malice, I say this so that we begin to look inward before we look forward. The Chancellor, (and President) have to see how broken this situation is. For their own part, their charge, at the end of the day is to protect the brand. It should be aspirational, nay, demanded, that UMass leadership begins a wholistic review of the program to determine where the breakdown lies. As referenced earlier, it's just just schematics, facilities etc. It's deeper than that. It's, for lack of a better phrase, is cultural, and no amount of new leadership will change that because, at the end of the day, the problem is so structural in nature, that it permeates through each new program/system we bring in and won't stop until there is a break in the cycle.
You are correct, the problems with football are much more deeply rooted than most will acknowledge. Umass football has been in purgatory since the day after they announced Molnar. Besides simply sucking (really sucking) for the last 10 years, Umass has so many logistical walls in their way.

1. The geographic is horrible for football. Not just Western Mass, that is the North East in general
2. Our stadium is the worst in FBS and a higher percentage of FCS
3. We do not have any real sugar daddy(s) to compete with NIL (at least not the kinds of players who can help this program turn the corner)

AND - the people who are calling the shots are incompetent (Bamford mostly). In simplest terms, he has not figured out how to manage around the first 3 points. I am not saying I have the answers either, but obstacles today are no different than they were 10 years ago.



The administration has been fucking up time and time again for the last 30+ years. They hit the lottery with Calapari then pissed it all away with bad decision after bad decision - by being flat our wrong or way too late. You can get away with a bad decision or two, but that is it. They fucked up with Bruiser and they fucked up not taking advantage of jumping up in football in the 90's, and they piled on from there. Instead of taking advantage of and investing in the opportunity, they got greedy instead.
Eldon- we completely agree on the football should have moved up in the 90's to conference usa. would have been a good fit for basketball and football at the time.

here is my question for you: who should have umass hired after Cal?
Did conference USA want UMass back then for football? Was it feasible with the old stadium capacity requirements? I know it was talked about, I just don’t remember the details. UConn was blessed to be in the big East.

User avatar
Merlin Samuels
Junior
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by Merlin Samuels » Tue Feb 21, 2023 10:00 pm

minutefanjsf wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:47 pm
PreecherJenkins wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:10 pm
eldonabe wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:55 am

You are correct, the problems with football are much more deeply rooted than most will acknowledge. Umass football has been in purgatory since the day after they announced Molnar. Besides simply sucking (really sucking) for the last 10 years, Umass has so many logistical walls in their way.

1. The geographic is horrible for football. Not just Western Mass, that is the North East in general
2. Our stadium is the worst in FBS and a higher percentage of FCS
3. We do not have any real sugar daddy(s) to compete with NIL (at least not the kinds of players who can help this program turn the corner)

AND - the people who are calling the shots are incompetent (Bamford mostly). In simplest terms, he has not figured out how to manage around the first 3 points. I am not saying I have the answers either, but obstacles today are no different than they were 10 years ago.



The administration has been fucking up time and time again for the last 30+ years. They hit the lottery with Calapari then pissed it all away with bad decision after bad decision - by being flat our wrong or way too late. You can get away with a bad decision or two, but that is it. They fucked up with Bruiser and they fucked up not taking advantage of jumping up in football in the 90's, and they piled on from there. Instead of taking advantage of and investing in the opportunity, they got greedy instead.
Eldon- we completely agree on the football should have moved up in the 90's to conference usa. would have been a good fit for basketball and football at the time.

here is my question for you: who should have umass hired after Cal?
Did conference USA want UMass back then for football? Was it feasible with the old stadium capacity requirements? I know it was talked about, I just don’t remember the details. UConn was blessed to be in the big East.
Yes, I even remember rumors of a Big East invitation... seems unlikely. I think Kraft was trying to get his stadium built and said we could use it.

eldonabe
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5577
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 4:34 pm
Location: Western MA

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by eldonabe » Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:21 am

PreecherJenkins wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:10 pm
eldonabe wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:55 am
UMassNet15 wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:19 pm I have often said, the issues that plague UMass football are more deeply rooted than I think any of us realize. A decade + of losing and decisions made from leadership from the top have taken a toll on a once proud program, rendering it to "lovable losers" status. I don't say this with any malice, I say this so that we begin to look inward before we look forward. The Chancellor, (and President) have to see how broken this situation is. For their own part, their charge, at the end of the day is to protect the brand. It should be aspirational, nay, demanded, that UMass leadership begins a wholistic review of the program to determine where the breakdown lies. As referenced earlier, it's just just schematics, facilities etc. It's deeper than that. It's, for lack of a better phrase, is cultural, and no amount of new leadership will change that because, at the end of the day, the problem is so structural in nature, that it permeates through each new program/system we bring in and won't stop until there is a break in the cycle.
You are correct, the problems with football are much more deeply rooted than most will acknowledge. Umass football has been in purgatory since the day after they announced Molnar. Besides simply sucking (really sucking) for the last 10 years, Umass has so many logistical walls in their way.

1. The geographic is horrible for football. Not just Western Mass, that is the North East in general
2. Our stadium is the worst in FBS and a higher percentage of FCS
3. We do not have any real sugar daddy(s) to compete with NIL (at least not the kinds of players who can help this program turn the corner)

AND - the people who are calling the shots are incompetent (Bamford mostly). In simplest terms, he has not figured out how to manage around the first 3 points. I am not saying I have the answers either, but obstacles today are no different than they were 10 years ago.



The administration has been fucking up time and time again for the last 30+ years. They hit the lottery with Calapari then pissed it all away with bad decision after bad decision - by being flat our wrong or way too late. You can get away with a bad decision or two, but that is it. They fucked up with Bruiser and they fucked up not taking advantage of jumping up in football in the 90's, and they piled on from there. Instead of taking advantage of and investing in the opportunity, they got greedy instead.
Eldon- we completely agree on the football should have moved up in the 90's to conference usa. would have been a good fit for basketball and football at the time.

here is my question for you: who should have umass hired after Cal?
It is a fair question but I cannot give you a specific name. It has more to do with what kind of coach should they have hired. Bruiser was not ready (mature enough) to take that position at that time. The analogy I used to describe it was it is like giving a 16 year old kid the keys to your Porsche. As the assistant coach he was the good guy and the buddy to the players to offset Cal. He was not going to be taken seriously as the bad guy - which a head coach absolutely must be - never mind for a program that was as high profile as Umass was at that time. He was fucked out of the gate. He was lucky to have enough talent left over to overcome some of those shortcomings in 97 and 98.

Umass needed to hire another seasoned/experienced HC at that moment who had street-cred and commanded immediate respect. Aj Basit took full control of that situation and when Bru did not handle that properly it was game over. Cal would have benched that kid in a minute and sent a message to the rest of the team, instead Bru allowed him to act like an asshole and celebrate a putback layup like he just dropped a Dr J windmill dunk at a critical point in a game.

That is nothing personal against Bruiser. He is one of the nicest people I have ever met; he was just the wrong guy at the wrong time and that is it. Umass needed the Angry/Intense Bruiser that he was at Drexel. I have also always said, if Bru was the second hire after Cal instead of the first, he may very well still be coaching at Umass today.

User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 17645
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:27 am

Did anyone ask these questions to the new Chancellor during the interview process? Inquiring minds want to know!

Image
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

User avatar
Rolling Ridge
Junior
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:17 pm

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by Rolling Ridge » Thu Feb 23, 2023 12:27 pm

InnervisionsUMASS wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:27 am Did anyone ask these questions to the new Chancellor during the interview process? Inquiring minds want to know!
This is probably a rhetorical question, but I sincerely hope not. Any quality candidate would have laughed in the interviewer's face and walked out had they been given such rambling and leading questions like the ones in the OP.

I think it's totally appropriate to get a prospective Chancellor's take on the role of Athletics at a university like UMass, and inquire about their experience managing Athletics in past positions. I think it's appropriate to task a new Chancellor with developing a strategy for success in Athletics at various levels, including defining what "success" looks like. But I wouldn't expect the interview process to get into the weeds on our football situation like this.

User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 17645
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Thu Feb 23, 2023 12:35 pm

Ha, it was very rhetorical. :lol:
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

User avatar
Rolling Ridge
Junior
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:17 pm

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by Rolling Ridge » Thu Feb 23, 2023 12:55 pm

InnervisionsUMASS wrote: Thu Feb 23, 2023 12:35 pm Ha, it was very rhetorical. :lol:
:D

ZooMass84
Senior
Posts: 1307
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:46 pm

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by ZooMass84 » Thu Feb 23, 2023 1:56 pm

UMassNet15 wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:19 pm I have often said, the issues that plague UMass football are more deeply rooted than I think any of us realize. A decade + of losing and decisions made from leadership from the top have taken a toll on a once proud program, rendering it to "lovable losers" status. I don't say this with any malice, I say this so that we begin to look inward before we look forward. The Chancellor, (and President) have to see how broken this situation is. For their own part, their charge, at the end of the day is to protect the brand. It should be aspirational, nay, demanded, that UMass leadership begins a wholistic review of the program to determine where the breakdown lies. As referenced earlier, it's just just schematics, facilities etc. It's deeper than that. It's, for lack of a better phrase, is cultural, and no amount of new leadership will change that because, at the end of the day, the problem is so structural in nature, that it permeates through each new program/system we bring in and won't stop until there is a break in the cycle.
This is basically a regurgitation of what Bay Area UMie said. And there is no whitewashing of 3 wins in 4 seasons!!!! or 3 wins in 40 games. HOWEVER, the great news is this: Mass. is a very wealthy state and UMass has got an absolute ton of money that they are paying an army of "administrators". You will never hear from anybody (Max Page is long gone) that "UMass football has got to go!!!" They money it costs is peanuts compared to ALL the other employee salaries. We'll win a game or two per season. Unfortunately the 1AA glory years are long gone. Yes Molnar was a bad hire, Whip was awesome and a great coach/offensive mind and Gomer Pyle was a 3 year embarrassment. Don Brown is a legit coach. The mere fact a bunch of former Univ of Arizona players are all coming to Amherst to play for him speaks volumes. OK lecture over.

ZooMass84
Senior
Posts: 1307
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:46 pm

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by ZooMass84 » Thu Feb 23, 2023 5:35 pm

eldonabe wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:55 am
UMassNet15 wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:19 pm I have often said, the issues that plague UMass football are more deeply rooted than I think any of us realize. A decade + of losing and decisions made from leadership from the top have taken a toll on a once proud program, rendering it to "lovable losers" status. I don't say this with any malice, I say this so that we begin to look inward before we look forward. The Chancellor, (and President) have to see how broken this situation is. For their own part, their charge, at the end of the day is to protect the brand. It should be aspirational, nay, demanded, that UMass leadership begins a wholistic review of the program to determine where the breakdown lies. As referenced earlier, it's just just schematics, facilities etc. It's deeper than that. It's, for lack of a better phrase, is cultural, and no amount of new leadership will change that because, at the end of the day, the problem is so structural in nature, that it permeates through each new program/system we bring in and won't stop until there is a break in the cycle.
You are correct, the problems with football are much more deeply rooted than most will acknowledge. Umass football has been in purgatory since the day after they announced Molnar. Besides simply sucking (really sucking) for the last 10 years, Umass has so many logistical walls in their way.

1. The geographic is horrible for football. Not just Western Mass, that is the North East in general
2. Our stadium is the worst in FBS and a higher percentage of FCS
3. We do not have any real sugar daddy(s) to compete with NIL (at least not the kinds of players who can help this program turn the corner)

AND - the people who are calling the shots are incompetent (Bamford mostly). In simplest terms, he has not figured out how to manage around the first 3 points. I am not saying I have the answers either, but obstacles today are no different than they were 10 years ago.



The administration has been fucking up time and time again for the last 30+ years. They hit the lottery with Calapari then pissed it all away with bad decision after bad decision - by being flat our wrong or way too late. You can get away with a bad decision or two, but that is it. They fucked up with Bruiser and they fucked up not taking advantage of jumping up in football in the 90's, and they piled on from there. Instead of taking advantage of and investing in the opportunity, they got greedy instead.
Can't say I disagree with too much of what you said.

1. The geographic is horrible for football. Not just Western Mass, that is the North East in general disagree on this one; geographic is great: we can bus to UConn, BC, Army etc.
2. Our stadium is the worst in FBS and a higher percentage of FCS true
3. We do not have any real sugar daddy(s) to compete with NIL (at least not the kinds of players who can help this program turn the corner) I haven't seen T. Boone Pickens in Amherst.

They hit the lottery with Calapari More like the Powerball

eldonabe
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5577
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 4:34 pm
Location: Western MA

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by eldonabe » Fri Feb 24, 2023 7:51 am

I guess I need to clarify my Poor Geographic comment. I was speaking more in terms of fan support.

The North East (and Mass specifically) is a "pro sports town". College athletics always has a small place, but the State has proven time and time again, that they are ONLY front runners (aka bandwagon jumpers) with respect to college sports.

A Shitty Red Sox (Bruins, Celtics) team will still sell out - a shitty BC / UMass team is lucky to get 30% capacity (for example).


If a Boston team (BC) in a major P5 conference cannot get the talent and bring in fans, how in hell is Podunk Umass who has no FB Conference going fill that building?


Umass is pissing into a gale force wind and their pants are getting soaked..

Post Reply